Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Its a pretty scary development that militant idiots and right wing fanatics could get a fairly prestigous and tenured full professor fired. The tone of the 9/11 statement that started Churchill's controversy was harsh, but nonetheless true, from any perspective which isn't blinded by an American flag, or choking on the elixir of nationalism. I won't weigh in on my opinions here since I will get fired up, angry and end up typing for the next hour.

I don't like to buy organic food products, and avoid them at all cost. It is a principled decision reached through careful consideration of effects of organic production practices on animal welfare and the environment. I buy regular food, rather than organic, for the benefit of my family.

Me too, but then, as a child I ate lead paint, and still enjoy a bowl of chips in front of the TV now and then.

Writer Jackie Avner, besides living in Highlands Ranch as her bio-line says (and that's it), has a rather interesting job: she works for a company that's genetically engineering an allergy-free (for people) cat:

A biotechnology company intends to alter the genetic makeup of moggies [sorry, this is the BBC] to create the perfect pet for allergic cat lovers.

Transgenic Pets claims sufferers will soon be able to own a cat without fear of a runny nose or streaming eyes . . . .

"We're simply removing a non-essential protein from the cats and it shouldn't hurt the cats in any way," Jackie Avner of Transgenic Pets told the BBC. "The resulting cats will improve the medical health and the quality of life for millions of people."

For some reason the Post doesn't mention Avner's work. Mmmmmm, chips.

Update: Folks have worked themselves into dudgeons high and low in comments to the post. Worth reading, especially the veterinarian who works with food animals and notes that "organic-produced milk in general has more somatic cells (what some people have called pus) than non-organic-produced milk."

That's going to ruin my Lucky Charms Experience.

According to Avner, organic milk (now with more pus!) also costs 85 percent more than the regular low-pus variety.

Update II: Another commenter says Avner is employed by the free-marketeering Hudson Institute. This does not sound like something the Post would do. The Rocky, maybe, but not the Post.

Information Please, with the Yankees' "Lefty" Gomez and New York's "Li'l Flar" (as he was known in the South), Mayor Fiorella LaGuardia (3 October 1940).

Bonus Info Please! John Gunther and New York Times com-symp Jimmy, er, Walter Duranty (considerably less funny) (4 July 1941; that is, less than two weeks after Germany attacked Russia). Fascinating. [update: a couple of nasty skips, but it gets over them.]

Al Capone may have been jailed for tax evasion when his far more serious offense was racketeering, but he was certainly guilty as charged, and so is Ward Churchill. Yet in both cases the limited grounds [on which he was fired] had the effect of removing one man from the scene while leaving a larger systemic problem untouched. . . .

An individual was removed, but the larger problems of which he was a symptom remained. A department that thought this an acceptable standard for the professoriate will not be placed in receivership, a dean that let it happen on his watch will not be fired for dereliction of duty, a provost who did not ensure that he had appointed deans of adequate backbone will not be replaced, and so on up the line. The whole corrupted system will be left in place - just as it was when Al Capone's empire survived his jailing on a peripheral charge. That is why we can offer only two cheers for a dismissal that would have been fully justified on other and far more important grounds, grounds which would have amounted to an admission that Churchill was part of an infinitely larger and more serious problem than plagiarism. The university was lucky to be able to solve a problem it could not avoid (Churchill's presence on campus) without touching the wider one; the public was not so lucky.

The University of Colorado's trial and punishment of Churchill, in other words, was a little like the federal government prosecuting Al Capone for tax evasion and then calling its pursuit of gangsters complete. . . .

[T]he problem on campuses isn't rigorous Marxist materialists, as conservative stereotypes would have you believe [sic], but craven emotional warriors in the arena of identity politics.

Ethnic studies departments, such as Churchill's, may be the worst offenders. Created in the wake of the ethnic pride movement in the early 1970s, many simply never had the same kind of academic oversight as more established and prestigiousfields. . . . They earned their "psychic income" -- a phrase coined by former Gov. Jerry Brown -- trying to turn minority undergraduates into activists. (Meanwhile, the quality work on ethnicity was being done in more traditional disciplines.)

Update: PB notes that HE made the Capone analogy way back in June, 2005.

Gary Witherspoon presents, in the sneering tone we've all learned to love from such folks, the pro-Churchill case at Inside Higher Ed. Nothing new here:

Research misconduct is in the eye of the beholder. Euroamerican teachers and scholars have taught and written for several centuries that Columbus discovered America. That is a more profound and easily provable case of research misconduct.

Commenter JBM fields this one:

The refusal to even admit the documented misconduct in this case only proves the need for outside intervention to effect academic reform. This piece reads like parody.

"He is an incompetent, dishonest embarrassment," he says bluntly. "They said that he plagiarized, that he had invented historical data. He had appropriated other people's work without attribution. He had lied about his Indian status in getting the job," says a disgusted Horowitz.

Horowitz questions the statement by the chairman of the regents that firing Churchill was not an easy decision to make. "Oh? To fire someone who has been shown to be dishonest and incompetent is not an easy decision to make? ...and by the way, defiant in his incompetence and dishonesty," says Horowitz.

IT'S said that a "picture is worth a thousand words." For more than 25 years, conservative writers have been telling anyone who would listen that our higher education system was broken - that indoctrination was trumping education and our kids were throwing away their tuition dollars propping up vicious relics of the '60s and supporting universities that were increasingly repressive.

Enter Ward Churchill. One could not paint a more perfect picture of a spiteful, out-of-control leftist academic. Certainly his words were shocking - comparing the civilian victims of 9/11 to a Nazi leader was not only shockingly vicious, it was shockingly stupid.

The piece concludes, sensibly:

The academic left decries the "chilling effect" of Churchill's firing, but the only individuals who should feel "chilled" are those professors publicly spewing deranged invective at that same time that they conceal a professional past rife with fraud and abuse. In reality, there was no chilling effect in Churchill's case - only a cleansing effect as higher education scrubbed itself of the man who, more than anyone else, proved that something is very wrong with our universities.

Historian Deborah Lipstadt asks a question many have asked before: "[W]hy didn't anyone look at his credentials, articles, and claims (about Native American ancestry for example) before this whole thing blew up?"

We were headed for the door, when suddenly there was a scream that sounded like a wounded animal, and some crazy woman hit Carole from behind. Fern and I stopped to prevent Bertha from stumbling, but Carole faltered forward. Then this woman rushed around in front of us and started punching Carole in the face, screaming at the top of her lungs. . . .

We stood on the sidewalk in front of the club while Sergeant Madden cuffed the woman and put [her] in the back of the patrol car. Carole’s face was bleeding, her glasses damaged, and her wrist was broken, but while the officer was busy with the woman, Churchill came and stood in front of Carole. He is a very tall, big man, and he stooped over and got face to face with Carole, called her a filthy name I would never repeat, and spit in her face.

"The woman," of course, was Churchill's then-frau, M. Annette Jaimes. Where does he keep digging up such nasty pieces of work?

At the risk of invoking Eurocentric standards of scholarship and the cult of objective facts, the complaints against Churchill began a FULL DECADE before 2004, and they came from the national American Indian Movement (not a right-wing organization). National AIM complained bitterly to the CU administration at that time that Churchill was (precisely) a fraud, for he was falsely claiming to be an Indian, when there was not the slightest evidence that he was one. The response of the then-Chancellor of CU is typical of how far CU at that time was prepared to go to defend Churchill: “Ethnicity at CU is self-defined.”

The cult of objective facts. That's a good 'un.

(Art Eckstein is actually a professor of history at the University of Maryland, College Park.)

More: Morgan Liddick in the Summit Daily News (CO) supplies the Thought for the Day: "A vicious, abusive sociopath will create problems for his institution, given a soapbox and a guaranteed job."

Sunday, July 29, 2007

When Chinese poet Chu Yuan, a warrior and loyal aide to the old emperor, fell out with the new one, he is said to have drowned himself to save face. His followers wandered the Mi Lo River, banging the water with paddles to keep fish from eating their master's remains.

Dragon Boat Festival. Isn't that political correctness for you? Until just a few years ago it was called the "Human Chum Festival."

Cliché.

Lots of chum.

A demonstration of the ancient Chinese martial

art of Electric Bugaloo.

It rained a couple of inches Friday evening, so it was like Woodstock.

See?

All kinds of Asian food stands, of course, but luckily I didn't have any money.

The far side of the lake was almost deserted.

Geese.

Duck, duck, goose, pelican (at extreme upper left, goose butt, buoy).

Another lost frisbee: Billy Bob just kept on across the lake and got a shish kebab.

Carole Standing Elk and Patti Jo King in a (now-highlighted) comment at PB:

As two of the four older Indian women Churchill and his ex-wife, Professor M.A. Jaimes of San Francisco State University, assaulted in 1994 at the San Francisco Press Club, we are intimately familiar with the problems Churchill creates and leaves in his wake. While we hold CU ultimately responsible for licensing, nurturing, and supporting his plagiarism and deceit, we also understand how he misled them with skillful hucksterism. We would also like to remind the public that CU was contacted repeatedly about Churchill's fraudulent and volatile activities years before he made the "Little Eichmann's" comment.

CU turned a blind eye to his spurious, often violent activities toward Indians, on and off campus. They turned their back on the many complaints they received with typical Ivory Tower lack of respect for Indians - but also out of fear.

As he has demonstrated during this investigation, Churchill goes on the extreme attack when confronted. In California he and his former wife assaulted us - Indian women between the ages of 42 and 86, to try to stop us from distributing a statement denouncing his fraudulent activities in the Bay Area Indian Community.

Ron Zappola conducted a truly dumb interview of Ward Churchill Saturday night. Sample question: "You're a guy I can look in the eye and ask, is there any way you'll take a settlement as we wait for this trial?"

Oh, Wart claims "several" scholars have already turned down offers from CU because of its investigation of him, and calls Hank Brown a "professional liar."

Saturday, July 28, 2007

The Rocky's Vince Carroll on the Post's strange minimization of Adolf Eichmann's role in the Holocaust:

On Tuesday, the Post explained Ward Churchill’s use of the term “little Eichmanns” as a “reference to Nazi figure Adolf Eichmann, who some historians have speculated wasn’t anti-Semitic but was an ambitious foot soldier for an evil cause.”

On Wednesday, the paper defined “little Eichmanns” as “mindless bureaucrats in a larger campaign like World War II war criminal Adolf Eichmann, who helped manage the logistics of the Nazis’ mass exterminations.”

And on Thursday, yet another article dubbed Eichmann “a World War II Nazi technocrat.”

But that isn't true, of course:

Far from being a foot soldier, Eichmann was chief of the Gestapo’s Jewish office in charge of implementing the annihilation of an entire people. He was one of the few privileged Nazi insiders asked to attend the Wannsee Conference in 1942, which formalized the extermination policy and where he functioned as confidante to the vicious Reinhard Heydrich, who chaired the proceedings.

Why id dat important, Vinnie?

So that we remain faithful to history, of course. But also so that we understand the meaning of “little Eichmanns.” If someone calls you that, he’s not equating you to a mindless foot soldier in an ugly cause. He’s comparing you to an architect of genocide.

You, maybe, but not the janitors in the towers. So shut up.

Update: I guess Carroll was being polite in not naming the reporter who wrote those stories, but I checked: good ol' Allison Sherry, who also characterized Teeny Trot Tom Mayer and School of Education powerhouse Margaret LeCompte as constituting "many" professors who were "crushed" by Churchill's firing.

In comments over at PB, lawyer Paul Wolf clearly outlines the legal issues involved in the Churchill court case. Good stuff, but Wolf places due emphasis on the most important point (to me, anyway): Churchill will have to take the stand. And it won't be pretty:

Normally a lawyer examining a witness can only ask questions relevant to something at issue in the case. For example, it wouldn't be relevant to ask him about one of his wives who was found dead on the road in front of his house, in another unsolved mystery. The university did not fire him for that.

However, Churchill is guaranteed to be a bad witness. He will want to use the witness stand as a political platform to talk about racism, the war in Iraq, and whatever else. Every time he goes off track, he will have "opened the door" to those issues.

He's made so many public statements in his life, that if they go into those areas, Churchill will find himself explaining why he advocates "fragging" (soldiers murdering their superiors to protest war), why he claimed to be a Vietnam war commando when he was really a truck driver, what was his job at Soldier of Fortune Magazine, who is Lee Hill, and on and on and on.

And on.

If he doesn't remember then there is endless bizarre material to refresh his recollection. The skeletons in his closet may rival those of Jeff Dahmer. It will be like one of his interactions with the news media where he loses his temper and asks the reporter if he even knows how to spell "CIA". Yet unlike a news interview Churchill will not be able to run away nor will he be able to intimidate the person questioning him. He will be totally out of his element.

Why, poor Wart won't even be able to accuse opposing lawyers of pedophilia!* Or have a dimwit thug threatentheir lives! He'll be lost!

But how can you possibly compare the victims of 9/11 to that of a man shipping the gold fillings from murdered Jews?

Click, snap, creeeeeeaaaaakkkkkk:

Those (9/11 victims) who were engaged in the international-financial operations, which were the motive cause for U.S. policy … in full knowledge of what effects were on juvenile populations, sweatshops, and so forth—that’s the anchor here. Implement policy for profit, to maximize profit, to increase dividends, blah, blah, blah.

Blah, blah, blah.

A few other good 'uns:

[The Standing Committee on Research Misconduct] was as much of a jury of my peers as the (1950s) all-white juries in the southeastern states in regard to black defendants.

It's appropriate that Churchill was fired just after the release of the last Harry Potter book. Both generated huge media circuses, because they are both what the public always craves: stories full of colorful characters, some good and some evil, in a plot that creates nail-biting excitement because there must be a definite winner. There can be no compromise between good and evil. But no one knows which side will win until the very end.

Is Ward Churchill Harry Potter or is he Voldemort? That's what make it such a great media story. You can have it either way. The mainstream media don't really care.

But there's dope, er, hope!

My university can be a great one. But its administration and Regents have made the task a lot harder. They've let the university be turned into a media circus tent blown by the political winds, chasing a chimera of certainty more elusive than any wind [niiiiiice]. It may look like free speech, academic creativity, and the University of Colorado have been dealt a mortal blow. But remember, you've only read the first book.

Chernus, his bioline tells us, is author of American Nonviolence: The History of an Ideal and the forthcoming Monsters to Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin. Not that it's required for a professor of religion, but: how much you want to bet he doesn't believe in God?

We should not be afraid of people like Churchill in a free country. We might even say that rabble rousers, despite their frequent insults [hey, I'm a pedophile!], are refreshing and positively necessary contributors to honest and open debate. They force us to look at things from perspectives that are often outside the bounds of polite discussion. This is not a bad thing.

Dean somebody or other ominously remarks:

The CU Board of Regents has sent an important message: Watch what you say.

At the Post/News citizen-journalist site Yourshlub, "The Subversive Liberal" opines sensibly:

[Churchill's] supporters try to use examples of the criminal justice system. Pointing out that if evidence is obtained illegally it is tossed out. This wasn't a criminal investigation however. And his speech only made people look at his academic record more critically and they didn't have to look far to find enough evidence to prompt a serious investigation by the University. This flawed logic apparently gives Churchill a pass for all his unethical behavior because he has written something controversial and that's what prompted the University to scrutinize his work.

Paul Bass of the New Haven Independent tells of how he saw "firsthand an example of Churchill's research method, the most egregious contempt for fact or truth I've ever encountered." It concerns "bad-jacketing" in Churchill's account of the FBI and the Black Panthers, Agents of Repression:

I was particularly interested in the role of one Panther leader who oversaw the torture and murder of [fellow Panther] Alex Rackley. In my research I came across passing references to this Panther having served as a government agent. Tracing those references inevitably led to one source: Ward Churchill.

Specifically, the led to a passage in a book Churchill coauthored entitled Agents of Repression. Churchill wrote there that the Panther, "as it turned out, had been a paid FBI informer for a period of time never disclosed by Bureau." (The passage appears in a section titled, "Fabrication of Evidence," meaning fabrication by the FBI.)

That statement is footnoted. It refers to a paper written by late Panther leader Huey Newton that in fact presents no evidence that this Panther was a paid agent.

So I e-mailed Churchill to ask him the basis for the claim. He wrote back on Dec. 2, 2004.

"I've no official paper naming [the Panther] as an FBI operative. The case for his having been a provocateur is entirely circumstantial, but overwhelming," Churchill wrote.

Churchill was hired through a "special opportunity" position, designed by the university to help "recruit and hire a more diverse faculty." He had an M.A. from little-known Sangamon State University and no Ph.D at all. As documents from the time noted, his qualifications included only two items: strong lobbying from Evelyn Hu-DeHart, the chair of the Ethnic Studies program, and the now-disputed fact that "Ward is a Native American," meaning his hire would contribute "to increasing the cultural diversity on campus."

In a 2006 report that she prepared for Williams College, she contended that as "the opportunity to hire [under-represented minority] candidates is only as good as the pool," elite institutions needs to change their pool. Ph.D. programs from Ivy League schools, or from institutions such as Stanford or Michigan, might not have enough "diverse" candidates to go around. As a result, they need to target less prestigious institutions, such as Churchill's Sangamon State . . . .

Sangamon State! Slowly I turned . . .

Update: Hu-DeHart! Hu-DeHart! Raaaaaaaaaahhhhhh, Hu-DeHart!

Update II: In the august pages of Counterpunch, Churchill's frau, the disgusting Natsu Saito, pretends to care about anything but her smoked-and-dried little self:

Some have said it's a bad day for academic freedom. . . .

For me, the bad days are when we sit by and let the attorney general intimidate us into a collective silence; when we allow torture, disappearances and arbitrary detentions to become routine; when we insist that this is a democracy, but refuse to accept any responsibility for the actions of the government. The sad days are when our kids are punished or humiliated in school for refusing to celebrate this country's genocidal history; when we get glimpses of other people's children being reduced to "collateral damage."

Interesting paragraph in what Try-Works is labeling Ward Churchill's response to the regents, even though it's dated July 12 and seems on a cursory reading to be more of the same old crap:

The SCRM Committee also artificially restricted Professor Churchill's ability to respond to the charges. He was prevented from speaking directly to expert witnesses, even his own, and was required to e-mail his questions across the room to the committee chair. This caused considerable confusion and allowed Professor Wesson to "interpret" what he was asking, sometimes fundamentally changing his meaning; and generally impairing his ability to elicit information.

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Well, I am very happy that the tenured Tonto has been sent on his way. And all I can say to the University of Colorado is can you guys get a dental plan out there for your professors, for Godsakes. . . .

Now he's going to say that it has something to do with the fact that he referred to the 9/11 people as little Eichmanns. But the fact is this is about plagiarism. This guy's Indian name is Dances with Facts. And it was about time that he went. . . .

He's like a mid-life loser in some George Harrison [sic] sunglasses from Route 66 trying to be cool in front of the kids. But we get it; he's a loser.

Not great, but still.

The transcript has a "watch the segment" button, but apparently it's not up yet. Maybe his delivery makes it funnier.

I don't suppose that many TNR readers are big fans of Ward Churchill. But surely there are some. (A few of them wait for me to post a Spine and then pounce.) And I bet that there are also some who simply haven't heard of him. They are the better off for that.

Still, he is a figure in the culture, an ugly and pathetic figure. And was, until last week, a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado. . . .

And now that he has been fired from his tenured professorship. It is not this specially disgusting remark that provoked the revocation of his professorial permanency. But when a tenured member of the faculty is dismissed everybody somehow gets the willies.

As it happens, Ward Churchill is a scholarly faker, not just like many others in the "ethnic studies" racket but in a way especially offensive even to the minimal standards of that sloppy field. In any case, the president of the university, formergovernor Hank Brown has explained "Why I Fired Professor Churchill" in this morning's Wall Street Journal, a persuasive explanation.

At this point Josh R. Dillabaugh is still following me around threateningly, which is why Nutso is smirking. Daniel Kim, organizer of the disastrous Churchillpalooza, stands left. And who's that other long-haired man in the sunglasses back there?

Update: Laurie, who accompanied me to the regents' sessions, describes what she saw that morning in comments over at Try-Works. She begins by quoting from one of Ben Whitmer's crazed fulminations about me (he's obsessed, I'm telling you):

“In fact, the way he [your darling Drunkablog] was stalking [Ann-erika White Bird], we all began to wonder when he would drop his grubby trousers and start to rubbing his dick on her leg. That is, until her husband suggested warmly that Mr. Martin might want to quit fucking with his wife…”

Charming. Laurie replies:

Seems the only thing you know less about than baseball (Benjie had betrayed another of his myriad cluelessnesses) is what was going on at the Firing Day gathering. I can see why you got it wrong though. Either you never see 8:00 AM or you were nursing one hell of a hangover. Seriously, Benjamin, you looked terrible for a guy who was supposed to be so happy!
The fact is that the only girl John was following around was Ward Churchill. It was Josh who followed John, trying to block him from taking pictures of Ward, not his wife. She had not been, at any time, anywhere near us. Sadly, no matter what he was saying, Josh made it clear he was more interested in Ward Churchill than his wife!
Josh placed his entire body about 4 inches away from John and leaned in from his waist up while he held his hand in front of John’s camera. I mentioned my surprise at his attempts to interfere with John’s right to take pictures of Ward, as everyone else was doing at the time. Then the threats began. I witnessed him make death threats to John, repeatedly. Ken Bonetti turned around and saw what was going on and made a discouraging comment to Josh on the order of “none of that!”. Then I heard Josh say he had been in jail and wouldn’t mind going again. For a good 10 minutes he shadowed John and looked intimidating as his baby-face would allow. I spoke with security and they were watching. I was called away for a media interview. During the filming, someone walked by me and said “You’re dead!” I’m not sure who that was, but I know he will be visible on the tape. . . .

As I said over at Try-Works, evil and stupid, just like the rest of them. Always a winning combination.

All kinds of verbiage about the Churchill case, as PB (from whom I shall gleefully steal while changing his wording only slightly) notes.

The Hankster unburdens himself in the Wall Street Journal: "Why I fired Ward Churchill". Money quote:

Controversy -- especially self-sought controversy -- doesn't immunize a faculty member from adhering to professional standards. If you are a responsible faculty member, you don't falsify research, you don't plagiarize the work of others, you don't fabricate historical events and you don't thumb your nose at the standards of the profession. More than 20 of Mr. Churchill's faculty peers from Colorado and other universities found that he committed those acts. That's what got him fired.

And yet, I was still stunned that one regent, Cindy Carlisle, refused to go along with the pack. This is your basic profile in courage. It's also a major upset.

Major upset? Profile in courage? Silly Cindy Carlisle? Your pal the Drunkablog predicted not only the vote, but that she would be the lone dissenter. And as you know, your pal the Drunkablog ain't exactly astute. A little more:

This a story [sic] of media frenzy and how Churchill's "Little Eichmanns" 9/11 essay- rediscovered more than three years after he wrote it - became a test of dissent in wartime, a war that many people have changed their minds on.

Non-sequitur--three of 'em, in fact.

I'm guessing [Carlisle] saw something that everyone should have seen: that as much as CU wanted to make this about academic misconduct, everyone knows why we were all here. Churchill didn't become a Bill O'Reilly staple because he was a plagiarist or because of what he might have said about Capt. John Smith or blood quantum or smallpox.

And as a bonus, it became a story about the left-leaning academia that O'Reilly and the gang are always ready to demonize. And if it was a test, we lost, just as CU has lost.

Not about plagiarism. O'Reilly and the gang. You see how clueless Littwin is about who and what have been driving this story? And who exactly does he mean by "we"? From my point of view, "we" won, Big F. Time, Jr.

Littwin, by the way, was right there the whole time Dimbulb Dillabaugh was threatening to kill and/or maim me. Nothing in his story about that. Three possible explanations:

1. Littwin is (very) hard of hearing;

2. Littwin is catatonically incurious;

3. Littwin knows who I am and doesn't like me because I've pickedon him (picture fourth from bottom).

My answer: 2 and 3. Whatever the case, Littwin just sat there, head down, sending out huge "don't bug me" vibes even when it was only him, Laurie, his assistant or whatever she was and me still outside. Lazy, spiteful, chicken and unthinkingly liberal--that's Littwin.

Dipshit Dillabaugh was about six inches away, threatening, when I took this pic. Littwin's the long-hair. [Update: As noted yesterday, the big guy in the white shirt was pictorially featured at LGF yesterday. He does not fare well in comments. In fact, somebody calls that complicated beard of his a "cock target." As also noted yesterday: heh. Update: Got off on a small tangent, didn't we? Littwin. I spit me of him, as P.G. Wodehouse once said.

Anyway, PB also links to an idiotic piece at "Media With [it says here] Conscience" by some gink going under the name Rosemarie Jackowski. He's already taken the best quotes, like this:

Churchill is not alone in his current circumstance. His name will go down in history along with Galileo and others who have dared to challenge the conventional view. Now the trial of the century is about to begin. It has been more than 300 years since the Salem Witch Trials and more than 80 years since the Scopes Trial.

So I'll just quote her opening:

This is not the first time in history that mob rule has taken the place of intelligent reflection. The earth is flat; the sun revolves around the earth; 9/11 occurred because they hate us for our freedoms. Those who disagree will be charged with Heresy! A modern day Inquisition has been in process. Professor Ward Churchill has been fired.

3 and 4. CU unlawfully breached Churchill's contract in failing to comply with university procedures. This includes three sections on CU's failure to pay Churchill's lawyer David Lane $20,000 Lane thinks the university owes him.

Lots of commentary today on Ward Churchill's firing (!), some of it even interesting:

Historian Deborah Lipstadt weighs in with "Ward Churchill [the one who called the 9/11 victims (and me) Eichmanns] fired: But not for that." (He also, if you remember, called Lipstadt a war criminal who should be tried for crimes against humanity.)

I have been interested in Ward Churchill for years. So interested, in fact, that his writings inspired me to write a novel about what might happen if the “global justice movement” developed a taste for revolutionary violence.

There is no defensible scholarly conclusion that anything I've said in my writng is even inaccurate, much less fraudulent, or that I've committed so-called plagiarism. All they've got is public outrage in the form of very well-organized right wing active-style lobbying blocs and the statements of public officials and so on saying I should be removed as a basis for removing me.

That makes sense! Ward is not sharp this morning, and, hilariously, Amy cuts him off mid-maunder.

The decision to fire Ward Churchill is really sad for me. He's the only professor that I've taken a class where I've really felt empowered as an indigenous person [and that's all that matters, Ann-erika] . . . . The history that we hear growing up about the smallpox blankets, it's not something that you question, it's something that's part of our oral history and its part of the history of other indigenous peoples.

Churchill is quite literally a schmuck: an instrument normally used as a conduit for waste, who, when stroked, inflates himself far beyond his normal size, and spews forth what he believes to be the very stuff of life, but which most people who come in contact with find pretty slimy and gross. In case you haven't figured it out, we at Jewdar are not fans of ex-professor Churchill.

Update II: El Presidente has a Churchill "lawsuit edition" post up that has much stuff, including a couple of unscientific but telling polls on Ward's firing.

Update III: NRO-nik David French, former president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, is succinct:

An under-qualified, arguably fake Native American with a long history of not just plagiarism and other forms of academic fraud, but also a disturbing tendency to threaten and intimidate his critics, it turned out that Churchill was the kind of person who could only exist within the coddling atmosphere of either a radical activist organization or a university ethnic studies department (as if those things are different).

Update IV: I keep meaning to link to El Marco's photo page, which has lots more than just Churchill firing photos (although those are great).

First, Wilson falsely claims that “most of the faculty” recommended suspension. The truth is that the two CU committees with the power to make a recommendation of sanctions split their decision. A majority of the Research Misconduct committee voted for dismissal. A majority of the P&T committee favored suspension. Thus the President’s decision to dismiss was not in contradiction with the faculty fact-finders.

Second, Wilson falsely claims that the findings of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism are “unsupported by the facts.” This is simply incredible. Have a look at my analysis of Churchill’s smallpox blanket fraud at: http://www.plagiary.org/smallpox-blankets.pdf.

The case against Churchill is overwhelming. The fact that Churchill keeps changing his story and making up new lies to defend his old lies is in itself strong evidence of his dishonesty.

Churchill has advanced twelve different excuses for his plagiarism. Surely an innocent man would not need twelve different excuses. There is not space here to get into the details, but watch for my analysis of Churchill’s various excuses for his plagiarism, forthcoming in the Plagiary journal. . . .

Update VII: Before the event someone wondered if University of Denver professor Dean Saitta, CEO of Teachers for a Democratic Society and staunchish Churchill supporter, would show up for Ward's divestiture.

He didn't. TDS hasn't been updated for four months, and nary a word of solidarity from Dean since the disastrous final event of Churchillpalooza. He didn't sign any of the academic misconduct complaints against the Churchill investigating committee either.

You think maybe he's finally figured out that Wart & Co are a little too stupid and dangerous to be used as symbols of freedom of speech?

The nearly unanimous decision to fire professor Ward Churchill stirred discontent among some faculty Tuesday, many of whom vowed to fight the decision.

Many professors said they saw the decision coming and said they were crushed by what it might do to recruiting creative professors to the campus.

Many professors. Crushed.

Already, as news bubbled out [yum] across the half-empty summer campus, several faculty said they will plan teach-ins and panel discussions about civil rights this fall.

Oh boy. But note how those many professors have suddenly dwindled to severalfaculty. Moving along:

"If you are controversial, even if you have a distinguished career that is respected, if you have somehow annoyed the powers that be, or if the kind of work you're doing is not supportive of major donors to the university, then you're not safe," said Margaret LeCompte, a professor in the School of Education.

"This is not the end of this struggle, by any means," said sociology professor Tom Mayer.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Laurie, SP's El Presidente and I got together for part 2, the vote, in the Glenn Miller Ballroom. Lots of waiting, lots of wandering around taking pics. Yes, Ward was lunking about with his big sticks. When he came in and saw me taking (yet another) pic of him he said, "get my good side, John." Displaying that flashing wit so many have noted I said, "There ain't one, sorry."

Notice the clever use of "ain't" to mimic Ward's own writing style as Charley Arthur?

We waited something like an hour and a half. Then the regents came in, voted, and left. Boos and cursing. No open mike. As we were leaving, Glenn Morris, the Harvard-educated lawyer, CU Denver professor and Churchill supporter, walked by us. I said, "Hi, Glenn!" in my usual cheery tone. His reply: "You'll be getting it."

Nice. Another goddamn threat against the personage of the Drunkablog. Morris didn't tarry to explain what "it" might be, probably because he was in a hurry to play drums with Wart:

Wait, wrong long-running sitcom. This sitcom was the start of the regents' meeting to decide whether to fire Ward Churchill, and it was wild and woolly, not to say a leetle dangerous for your friendly neighborhood Drunkablog.

Lots of media, of course.

Wart showed up punctually, a little before 8:00, I think. I gave him the high sign, as I'd promised to do over at Try-Works. He saw it.

Marxist ratbag and CU sociology prof Tom Mayer.

Wart's in there somewhere.

CU student advisor and Churchill supporter Ken Bonetti. I asked him when the DVD of Churchillpalooza was coming out, and he said that while no one had asked for it, he could probably rustle me up a copy. Heh.He also witnessed the threat on my life (see below).

CU spokesman Ken McConnellogue (r).

Ann-erika White Bird.

And Ann-erika White Bird's husband (he said), Josh R. Dillabaugh:

In front of about 30 people, many of them with cameras and tape recorders, former AIM leadership council member Dillabaugh (who said he'd been in jail and didn't care if he had to go back) threatened to "fuckin' kill" me. PB and Drunkablog friend Laurie was right there, as was Ken Bonetti, who said something like "now, none of that."

Dillabaugh also followed me around while I was taking pictures, saying I'd been harassing his wife and threatening to "kick my ass." He said it roughly half a dozen times, so somebody had to get it on tape. (The first time he threatened me, by the way, some guy came over and stationed himself on my other side, ready to help Dillabaugh out. I was wearing a video camera, a still camera, and a backpack, with two guys just itching to punch me in the head.)

Oh yeah, there was at least one other witness to Dillabaugh's threats:

That's right, law professor and officer of the court Natsu Elaine Taylor "Truthforce" Saito, Churchill's frau. I pointed at her and yelled "an officer of the court, a law professor [see?], and you're just standing there!" She just laughed, then later made sure I saw her giving Dillabaugh a big hug. Scum.

Churchill's dog Benjie.

Who, me?

Churchill had time to go outside for four or seven cigarettes before the meeting started. Here he'd just greeted me with "Hey, John! Molested any kids lately?" Darn, maybe he really is Charley Arthur. Okay, enough for now. I'm going back for the afternoon session, which promises more excitement. This time I'll remember my tape recorder. Listen Drunkablog fans, if any, don't forget who threatened me. These people are capable of any cowardly act--or, more accurately, capable of getting others to do any cowardly act.

Update: Reporters outnumbered vigil-keepers, or whatever they called themselves. I talked to two of them, one from the News, one from the Post. Don't know if I'll make the cut with either one. Laurie got a nice three or four-minute standup for (I guess) a RMN vlog. I'd have been nervous, but she just said what she had to say. Wonder if it's up yet.

Update II: Yes, Nutso smokes just like Ward. Probably part of their deep bond. Yippee-aye-yo-ky-haaaaack.Update III: Journalists! If you would know Ward Churchill, you must know Try-Works (read the comments for the last month as well, at least, if you care about doing an accurate story). Westword's Michael Roberts also wrote a much-too-nice account of CU instructor Ben Whitmer and his nasty little blog here.

Update IV: I probably should explain what Churchill meant by asking if I'd molested any kids (lately). First, one of Try-Works' (and therefore Ward's) pet accusations against their enemies has always been pedophilia. Besides me, they've accused Pirate Ballerina's Jim Paine and Rocky Mountain News editorial page editor Vince Carroll of that particular crime--on absolutely no evidence, it goes without saying but I'll say it anyway.

More recently, the Try-Works' Ann-erika White Bird ran a criminal background check on me. Coming up empty, she ran one on my wife, Susan, who has nothing to do with the Churchill case but who, five years ago, got a DUI. White Bird plastered this information all over the blog--anonymously (she thought), of course.

When THAT didn't have the desired intimidating effect (I mean, five years ago? Even the insurance companies don't care anymore, and Susan hasn't had a drink since), the Try-Works' Charley Arthur (Ward Churchill) added the piquant accusation that I had a lengthy but for some reason sealed history of window-peeping and panty-stealing in Boulder County.

Monday, July 23, 2007

Keep forgetting to mention that I'll be at both sessions of the regents' meeting to decide the fate of Ward Churchill tomorrow. Unfortunately, unless I can cadge a CU password it's going to be kind of fake live-blogging: I'll just have to wait to post until I find a place to connect. After the (short, probably) morning session I should be able to hunt one up, no problem. There'll be pictures, of course, assuming there's anything to take pictures of.

Both the morning and afternoon sessions will be streamed, by the way, and PB will be live-blogging them from his mountain fatness, er, fastness. So with him doing the heavy lifting, I'll just wander around where the stream can't take you. I'll be like, the color man. Or the chick doing the sideline reports. I don't care, I just want to be part of something for once in my pa--

Sorry.

Anyway, the morning fun starts at 7:30, MDT; the regents' vote and open-mike time, maybe around 4:00 (at the earliest). Watch this space.

Update: Snapple sends this appreciation for the day we like to call--Tomorrow. It'll freak you out. And not in a good way.

Weird, fake-even-handed piece on Ward Churchill by some gink named Aaron Barlow at some funhouse called ePluribus Media:

Arguments over Churchill, whether between a David Horowitz type and an academic or between those within academia who see a witch-hunt and those who see simply a cad [sic] brought to rights, have been going on for well more than a year, now [sic]. Indeed, though his guilt or innocence should not be the point of the broader discussion (few of us are really in a position to judge), there are those on all sides who try to make Churchill and his presumed guilt or innocence an emblem for their greater argument about academia.

Sunday, July 22, 2007

More than a decade after they began setting fires across the West, remnants of the radical Earth Liberation Front stood before a federal judge, one by one, to hear her decide: Had they committed acts of domestic terrorism?

First, ["Country Boy"] Stanislas Meyerhoff.

Quiet, shy, his hair turning gray at 30, the slightly built Meyerhoff was dwarfed by the angular expanse of the courtroom.

"I was ignorant of history and economy and acted from a faulty and narrow vision as an ordinary bigot," Meyerhoff said, in May.

No doubt. And?

"A million times over I apologize ... to all of you hardworking business owners, employees, researchers, firemen, investigators, attorneys and all citizens whose property was destroyed, whose holidays were ruined, whose welfare was thwarted,and whose sleep was troubled."

By the time Gerlach was sentenced this May, her tone was contrite and repentant. Like many of her co-defendants, she claimed she had changed her ways.

"It's very clear to me now that if you want to live in a world of peace and equality, you need to embody those qualities in your own heart and actions," Gerlach, now 30, told the judge. "I am grateful I have been given this opportunity to reconcile my past."

Peace and equality. Reconcile my past. She hasn't learned a thing. Oh well. As the AP says, they were only kids--maybe just a little too good, a little too caring:

Bound by youth, idealism and frustration over the ineffectiveness of more traditional environmental protest methods, they had turned to secret meetings, codes and stealth attacks on private and public property, setting fires in the dead of night to draw attention to their cause. . . .

The portrait that emerges is a band of young people, compassionate toward animals, seeking direction in life, looking to impress each other and reinforce their own sense of self-worth as much as they were looking for a cause. Mostly, they were desperate for attention for that cause.

In a word: infantile. But gee, they wouldn't have set fires at all, if only, if only, well, if only the system weren't broken, dammit. But it is, so they had no choice:

"If we were able to affect policy change through more legal means, then certainly that's the way these people would go," [former editor of the Earth First (no exclamation point) Journal Jim] Flynn said. "Nobody enjoys being underground, and that lifestyle."

And for the first time, Our Miss Brooks, with the great Eve Arden. This one is called "The Heating System" (9 January 1949). Listen to the voice of nerdy high-schooler Walter Denton. He was played, believe it or not, by Richard Crenna, who later often played cops and military types in movies and on TV, most notably (maybe notably isn't quite the word) in the Rambo movies.

Many years ago a leading publisher in the UK commissioned my mother to read a book in German and make a recommendation about a possible English edition. My mother's report for the publisher said - I paraphrase, but not roughly - that the book was sub-literate and preposterous, had been written by an obvious ignoramus, and that no reputable publishing house would waste any time or risk its good name in associating with it. The publisher took note of this firm recommendation and decided not to commission an English translation.

So another English publisher brought out the book instead. The author's thesis was that extraterrestrial beings had visited Earth in ancient times and built, among other marvels, the statues on Easter Island, Stonehenge and the Great Pyramid at Giza. The author's name was Erich von Däniken, and his book - under the English title Chariots of the Gods? - became one of the great bestsellers and publishing sensations of the 1970s. He followed it with more than twenty other works in the same vein and to comparable public acclaim. But my mother's recommendation had been right; likewise the original publisher's decision to act on it.

Based on the May 9, 2006 Report of a University of Colorado (CU) Investigative Committee, President Hank Brown has recommended that I be dismissed for “research misconduct.” From the beginning, it has been clear that going through my scholarship with a fine-tooth comb was simply a pretext to fire me for my constitutionally protected speech.

The fraudulent nature of CU’s “investigation” has been clearly documented by 5 sets of research misconduct complaints filed against the Investigative Committee. Two sets of these complaints were filed in May 2007 by 9 CU professors, 6 outside professors and 2 attorneys.

Marxist sociology professor and former Stasi interrogator Tom Mayer signed various complaints a total of 13 times.

I have since filed three additional sets of research misconduct charges. These 5 complaints document, among other things, falsification and fabrication of evidence and plagiarism by the Committee in its Report on my scholarship.

Today I was informed that the University of Colorado will not investigate these charges against the Investigative Committee because its activities “did not constitute research.” This is astonishing, given that the Committee members were purportedly selected on the basis of their scholarly credentials and claim throughout the Report to be engaged in scholarly research and analysis.

As PB (from whom) asks, "does 'Investigating Committee' sound like a research enterprise, or an investigatory enterprise? If scholars conduct the investigation, does it suddenly become academic research?"

The answer, of course, lies in the age-old question: If a cat has kittens in the oven, does that make them biscuits?

In one of his filings, the embattled professor complains that Marjorie McIntosh, a distinguished professor of history emeritus, systematically plagiarized from sources on at least two dozen occasions.

Churchill has written that the Army distributed disease-infested blankets to the Mandan Indians in 1837, but assistant sociology professor Thomas Brown, of Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas, contends the CU professor fabricated his facts.

Churchill points to similarities between a draft complaint filed by Brown and the committee's report, saying that the writings are "conceptually identical." He says other committee members are responsible, too, because they endorsed the report

But Brown, in a telephone interview with the Camera on Friday, said he believes confidentiality rules kept the committee from citing his research.

"I don't think they plagiarized my research at all," he said. "It's clear they made use of it. I gave it to them ... I think the reason they didn't cite it is because they weren't allowed to by the rules."

Sorry. The D-a-W somehow inveigled me into standing in line with her at Wal-Mart, waiting with all the other freaks until midnight when the seventh and last book in the Harry Potter series went on sale.

I've read none of the books and seen, I think, only the first movie. Didn't much like it.

But anything for the blog. [Update: I mean, anything for the D-a-W.]

We got there about 11:30; at the front of the line people had been waiting since 8:00:

Much nearer midnight there were probably a couple-three hundred behind them:

We were entertained by our host, poor kid:

He asked trivia questions through a Mister Microphone and a boombox. I asked the D-a-W what the mark smeared on his forehead meant. "I don't know," she said. "I think it's blood."

Blood or not, there was booty to be collected (from left): wrist band signifying what "House" one is in; bookmark with prominent "Wal-Mart" logo; earplugs (D-a-W--"I have NO idea what those are for"); cookie.

And more booty:

Cupcake with ring embedded in it. The D-a-W says this is Ron Weasely (sp?), to whom she is now married.

Not many in costume. Kid on the right was hyped.

The books.

No tramplings, no blood-lettings (except maybe from our host). All in all, quite tranquil.

Update: The D-a-W would like me to note that she has read all the Harry Potter books thus far in Spanish, so she's not really a freak. She's just practicing her Spanish. I heartily endorse and support this claim.

Friday, July 20, 2007

Slogging my way through part 2 (38 pages, 202 footnotes) of Ward's lies and obfuscations in his countercharges against the committee that investigated his scholarship, these concentrating on his assertion that there was "strong circumstantial evidence" that Captain John Smith intentionally introduced disease among the Wampanoag Indians. Amazingly, Churchill spends 11 pages on whether the epidemic[s] that nearly wiped the Wampanoags out 1616-1620 was smallpox or something else--a point rendered moot, the report notes (p. 34), because "there is no evidence that John Smith introduced any disease" in the first place.

Churchill does make a (strained, to say the least) attempt to conjure evidence that Smith might have done so even though he'd left New England in 1614: fomite (which expert-on-everything Churchill repeatedly calls "formite") transmission; Smith left crew behind with instructions to spread disease; the Indians killed another guy they might have suspected of spreading disease, and so on. All these, of course, completely contradicting his claim in the 2003 essay, "An American Holocaust," that an epidemic broke out "in the immediate aftermath of Smith's expedition."

Many typos, much sneering.

Update: PB notes Churchill's denial that he has ever written "an essay" on the 1837 Fort Clark epidemic among the Mandan, and asks Google if this is so.

Update II: Churchill does the same tap dance in discussing John Smith when he claims that committee member Michael Radelet relied on only a single sentence in the "An American Holocaust" essay, and on the separate essay "Nits Make Lice," for Churchill's contention that Smith intentionally spread smallpox. In fact, Churchill himself "invited" the committee (in "Submission G") to examine his treatment of Smith in the book, A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present.

Update III: Churchill directly quotes (p. 11) the report (i.e., Radelet) as saying, "Biard's estimate of 3000-3500 Micmacs living in 1611 represents, according to Dean Snow's estimate, about one-fourth of the population a century earlier." The quote is actually Salisbury in Manitou and Providence, whom Churchill's footnote claims Radelet was merely "citing," not quoting. Why?

Churchill also says Radelet made up a quote from Churchill that "there is no record of any disease epidemic occurring before 1614." Radelet is apparently referring, again, to the essay "Nits Make Lice." Can't find it on the interwebs, so don't know if he's directly quoting Churchill or not. [Update: according to PB, he's not. Probably not a good idea to put it in quotes then.] [Another update: I had a some crap here about Churchill's A Little Matter of Genocide which was, perhaps, wrong. I said that the book contained the "other" essay Churchill says doesn't exist, but which the committee examined for its claims about John Smith. It's confusing, as Churchill wants it to be.]

Update IV: As Noj points out over at PB, Churchill waits till the end of this section to compare the committee to the Nazis--but he does it. You lose, Ward.

Although we are busy discussing Bush's ursupation of power and what this means for freedom and democracy and what can be done about it, it's worth taking note of what is happening to Professor Ward Churchill and academic freedom at the University of Colorado.

The right-wing has been calling for Professor Churchill's firing since 2001 for an Op-Ed he wrote after 9-11 that attributed Al-Qaeda's targeting of America and the Twin Towers to blowback from the Gulf War. It took them almost six years, but they hung on with pit bull ferocity and now seem to be about to achieve their aim. It's been pointed out to me that the "official" effort to fire him didn't begin until 2 years ago.

CU schedule for the regents' meeting to vote on firing Ward Churchill:

WHO: University of Colorado Board of Regents, an elected nine-member board, has broad oversight of the university. One of the board’s responsibilities is to take action on recommendations for faculty dismissal. Regent policy provides that “the board shall take action, which may include adoption or modification of the president’s recommendation or dismissal of the action against the faculty member. The board’s action, which must be taken in public session, is final.”

WHY: CU-Boulder Professor Ward Churchill has requested a hearing in front of the Board of Regents based on CU President Hank Brown’s recommendation to dismiss him. Regent policy provides the faculty member an opportunity to request a hearing before the Board during executive session. The policy can be found at https://www.cu.edu/regents/Policies/Policy5I.htm

WHAT: The board has called a special meeting to provide Professor Churchill an opportunity for a hearing before to the board before it takes action on President Brown’s dismissal recommendation. Since this is a special meeting of the board, no public testimony will be taken as stated in Regent policy. https://www.cusys.edu/regents/Policies/Policy2L.htm. An open mike will be available after the event for anyone desiring to express their personal opinions on topics related to the events of the day.

Whatever you do, don't tell Shareef Aleem.

WHEN and WHERE: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 from 8 a.m. – 5 p.m. at CU-Boulder’s University Memorial Center (UMC)8:00-8:15 a.m. Board convenes in public to announce it will go into executive session, UMC Room 235 (audio stream will beavailable at http://www.cu.edu/)

8:15 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. (no earlier) Board will be in executive session, which includes three parts:

1. Briefing by the board’s counsel2. Hearing - includes three parties involved in the case (Churchill/attorney, university counsel and faculty’s Privilege and Tenure Committee/counsel). Each party will have a set amount of time to present its case to the board. The board can ask questions, but no new evidence can be presented.3.Regents deliberate No earlier than 4 p.m. Regents will resume public session in UMC’s Glenn Miller Ballroom to vote on the president’s recommendation (video stream will be available at http://www.cu.ed/. After regents meeting CUPresident Brown and Board Chair Patricia Hayes will hold a press conference in UMC, Room 235. All media will need credentials from a recognized news agency to attend press conference, no exceptions. (video stream will be available at http://www.cu.edu/)

VIDEO AND AUDIO STREAM: http://www.cu.edu/. Audio stream of 8:00 a.m. public session and video stream of afternoon public session and press conference.

Update: More charges against the Churchill investigating committee! Why am I using an exclamation point!

Oh, these charges were filed by Wart himself. This is gettin' monotonous. Which, of course, is the point.